Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Mr. Marocharim's Dreams

Mr. Marocharim did not refute my answer to his post. Lest Mr. Marocharim forgets, this debate is not about “injustice”; nor about how “fractured” society is “along the lines of rich and poor,” “of (the) powerful” and “powerless”. No.

The core issue is about power, and the elite’s relationship with the governed (tsk,tsk, Mr. Marocharim, If i'm your Polsci teacher, I'll ask you to leave my class immediately and just plant kamote).

It is about state formation. It is about the relationship between those in government and the governed. What I cited are not fallacies; they are indeed, theories rooted in reality and in history.

I dispute his juvenile assertion that elites are not institutions. However, what I don’t understand is what he meant by this phrase “elites circulate”. Do you mean to say that elites are like “air” or the “wind”? My gulay, how “fractured” your logic is, my dear Padawan.

What you describe as “power” of the people is mere illusion. Your assertion that “the ruling class, by virtue of its economic power, will continually be in the struggle of those who oppose it…cannot resist the forces of change for long” is fallacious. Can you cite one successful people’s revolt which effectively dislodge the ruling class or the elites from power? Even in the Cuban Revolution of 1958 and that of Russia, they are all elite-led, even fostered a new clique after the Red Forces seized power. Did the “people” you described held some kind of power over the state and society? No. What power are you talking about? Probably, you’re talking about “liberties” which is a mile different from “power”.

And yes, I believe in what Foucault said that “when there’s power, there’s resistance” for surely, every thing in this universe has a dual quality. But, again, this is not the issue. Let me remind you that the issue is who holds the power and how this thing is being exercised.

Now, you cited the ballot as the physical manifestation of the social contract, yes? A contract is a meeting of the minds. Have you voted? When you placed the name of your candidate in that piece of paper, was there a Contract that was signed between you and your candidate? When you were writing, were you apprised of the terms of reference to govern the relationship between you and the candidate? Did you see any fine print there?

A ballot is simply an expression of an individual’s will. It is not an exercise of power; rather, it is an exercise of a right. You have the right to vote whoever you want. But if you tell me that exercise of a right is corollary to an exercise of power, that is erroneous thinking.


Laudable, but I respectfully disagree with the implications you raise. You did not answer my question, Sir; if the President should stay on the basis of a 7% growth rate last year, why is 7.4% of our people unemployed, 21.0% of our people underemployed, 16.2 million Filipinos are without electricity, 62% say they're poor, and parents eat their children's leftover chicken? It's been seven years; our people demand to "ramdam" the "kaunlaran."

With the data I have presented earlier, it is obvious that this positive economic growth does not - and cannot - justify the injustices suffered by our countrymen. The best barometer of economic growth is never numerical extrapolations from statistics, but actual situations that define whether or not the people enjoy the fruits of the economic growth you so hark.

Economic growth rates alone do not dictate development. A truly developed nation looks after the weakest of its members: trickle-down does not work You are stuck in a framework that as long as the graphs go up, it's all good. That is insufficient, HP. Yes, these economic accomplishments were the handiwork of a weak President given the fact that the few enjoy these benefits, and the many enjoy the scraps that fall from the table. The fact that we are an export-oriented, import-dependent nation is a cause for shame if GMA continues to develop stuff that are of little significance to the interest of the national polity, like call centers and memoranda of agreement to divide a nation.

On your last point:

"Why do I say that PGMA should continue her administration? Simple. Because we need a strong president. If we had a weak one, such as Erap, we could have, indeed be in the dumps right now. All of these things were accomplished despite constant destabilization attempts, smear campaigns etal against PGMA. With the interest of the nation at heart, PGMA and the rest of her team just pushed on, oblivious of all criticisms. That’s a good president for you. That’s strong leadership for you. That’s PGMA for you."

The fact that your President is oblivious to all criticism - or so you claim - is a manifestation of weakness. Pushing on without regard to criticism is:

a) The illusion that nothing is wrong
b) The delusion that Madam President is always right
c) That the people - the very people who made Government possible - are not important and insignificant.

If you say that we need a strong President, then I demand a stronger one. I demand a President who will change things, someone who can confidently tell me without a blink in the eye that the future is here, that the future is now, and it's all good. The high incidences of poverty and discontent in the Philippines demand a change of leadership and direction and vision as our Constitution allows. The fact that you claim GMA disregards criticism is an insult to the public, since criticism is a demand for the interest of the public good. That if the interests of the nation are at heart, why are there still the hungry among us? The poor among us? The people who suffer the indignity of standing stark contrast to their fellow men,

That, to me - and I'm not afraid to say it - manifests the presence of a fascist who disregards the public good in favor of a hold on power. Not a President.

Again, a poor exercise of logic. We are not talking about your “dreams”, your “demands” nor your sympathy for the poor. We are testing the validity of your statements

You did’nt directly refute my answer to your assertions. You have resorted to rhetorics, the kind I hear from dumb-witted activists marching in the streets and not knowing why they did it.

About having hungry people around, well, that we can’t really adequately explain. Can you explain why poverty exists? No one can. There are so many reasons why poverty exists. And it’s not solely because of a disparity in relationships.

I'm enjoying this. More of Mr. Marocharim's warped logic:

“The fact that there is a struggle against the injustices of the oligarch is itself a manifestation of power. While you so reflect a vision of Philippine reality from one side, you fail to see the other side: the struggle against injustice. These "destabilization attempts" are manifestations of the struggle against injustice: strikes, worker's movements, student movements, blogging. People are not sheep; they respond, react, struggle, and resist. You fail to acknowledge the agency of the masses. The fact that there is vocal resistance against Gloria Arroyo is proof that we exercise our agency. I, at the very least, do not mindlessly follow the President around like bleating sheep following Little Bo Peep.”
Whew. That was long. Yet, short in logic. Again, this is not the issue and unworthy of debate. This is plain and simple rhetorical conjecture. A struggle is not a manifestation of power. It is a form showing how people would act against your so-called “injustice”. It is like saying that when you kill a pig, it squeals. Of course it would. But, right now, do you hear the people “vocally” resisting Mrs. Arroyo? No. Do you have millions of Filipinos squealing like pigs waiting to be slaughtered? No. So, what’s the fuss about “struggle”, “resistance” ? If you equate this with the concept of “power”, you’re quite mistaken. The least that these things are, they are merely activities as an exercise of the right to assembly. Is this power? No.

Next....Mr. Marocharim, when will you be able to convince me to light my Slims? I've been wasting my time, some 2 minutes, destroying your arguments. Who'll make me light a Slim?

No comments: